4.5 Article

Prognostic Value of Different Patterns of Squamous Cell Carcinoma Antigen Level for the Recurrent Cervical Cancer

期刊

CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT
卷 45, 期 1, 页码 48-54

出版社

KOREAN CANCER ASSOCIATION
DOI: 10.4143/crt.2013.45.1.48

关键词

Uterine cervical neoplasms; Squamous cell carcinoma-related antigen; Biological tumor markers

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose In some unusual cases, in patients with cervical cancer, an elevation of squamous cell carcinoma antigen (SCC-Ag) was not observed at diagnosis but was observed on recurrence, or vice versa. The objective of this study was to identify patient-, disease-, and treatment-related factors associated with this unusual level of SCC-Ag, and to determine whether SCC-Ag is a useful tumor marker in such patients. Materials and Methods Among 129 patients with recurrence, 14 who showed a normal SCC-Ag level at diagnosis but an elevated level at recurrence were classified as group I; 22 patients with an elevated SCC-Ag level at diagnosis but not at recurrence were classified as group II; and 76 patients with an elevated SCC-Ag level at both diagnosis and recurrence were classified as group III. Results In univariate analysis, unusual SCC-Ag showed statistically significant relationships with pathology and biochemical response to treatment. However, in the multivariate analysis, none of the clinicopathologic factors showed a statistical relationship with unusual levels of SCC-Ag. The 5-year disease-free survival rates for groups I, II, and Ill were 7.1%, 9.1%, and 0% (p=0.418), and the 5-year overall survival rates were 34.3%, 58.4%, and 33.3% (p=0.142), respectively. Conclusion The value of SCC-Ag has been confirmed in all patients; thus, check of SCC-Ag level at follow-up should be considered. Although no statistically significant differences were observed among the groups, we conclude that patients with a high initial SCC-Ag and elevated SCC-Ag at relapse have poor prognosis due to high SCC-Ag level.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据